Van til and the Trinity

[faithandfreedom]

Well, I take them at more than face value. There is a philosophical discussion that lies behind our formulae. Anyone dealing with the history of doctrine knows this. Are we all bound to become naive and suppose the formulae have dropped out of heaven? I don't think so. At the very least the naive reader of Scripture is faced with the phenomenon of God speaking personally to us as well as a whole range of anthropomorphisms and pathisms. God speaks after the manner of men. We have to grapple with that. It is just here that philosophical discussion provides us categories to think through these things. So for me it is the confusion of categories that creates the problem in Van Til's discussion. He introduces paradox into our system of thought at the very point where traditional theology has given us clearcut categories. I am happy to leave it there. No need to press it further.

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. They have helped me immensely.

Just to clarify, I recognise that you interpret VT’s Trinitarian formula in an Orthodox manner.

 

[MW]

Ok, I know Frame, Oliphant, and White possibly have on simplicity but again this very undefined use of "some" leaves me scratching my head. And nothing about drifting theologically about the Trinity. That's what this threads about.

I think when it comes to "Van Tillians," he left the door ajar and they have opened it up a considerable way. Again, I don't think the philosophical analysis of the doctrine of the Trinity is the main problem. It is paradox. Under that methodology a person can introduce all kinds of things and they cannot be tested with a strict logical examination. You only need to show it is "in the Bible," something heretics have always been happy to do by simply making it up and finding some verses to support it. Then you can add some biblicism in there, with a lack of historical awareness, and we have some major problems.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Who? I don't know who this nebulous unamed group of people are? I don't worry immediately about hypothetical monsters around the corner or in the closet but the named one standing in front of me.


This is a lot of speculation of other people's thoughts. How do you know these things? In my opinion it's better to stick with "people could be confused by this language". That's fair and then going out and finding how much to see where you're at.

I agree. God bless you in your devotion to the church Rich.

Well now the "conspiracy" is getting larger and more abstract. I'm not personally attacking you, I hope you realize that, but it seems your nebulous unamed web is now getting larger. Yet no names have been offered.
Your whole line of reasoning here is too abstract to be of any practical value. Again no insults are intended here but it reminds me of "chicken little".

I don't think there is any conspiracy here, I just think that it stands to reason that a teacher will influence his/her students. Some of VT's students/readers will have rejected his formulation outright, some will have accepted his explanation of it and some won't have given it much thought. In the case of those who don't give it much thought, some will forget the teaching, but for others it will have a subtle or not so subtle influence on their understanding of the Trinity.

Having reflected on questions that have been raised by a variety of people on this thread, regarding my concerns with VT's Trinitarian doctrine, I did start to think "am I going too far with my criticisms". I reread part of Dr Mathison's book this afternoon and was struck by the following quotes. Dr Mathison summarises what I have been trying to say more eloquently than I could.

"For decades, Van Tillians have defended Van Til's formulation and offered explanations of how it can be read in an orthodox sense, but even if we grant that Van Til meant it in an orthodox sense, no confessionally Reformed Christian should have ever defended it."

"They could have explained that although he meant the language in an orthodox sense, the formula itself inevitably creates such confusion about Christianity's most foundational doctrine that it must be rejected. Good intentions are not an excuse for teaching dangerously false doctrines"

"Van Til's novel doctrine of the Trinity should certainly never under any circumstances be preached or taught to Christ's sheep in the pews. To go before Chrstian laymen and proclaim that God is 'one person' and 'three persons' is to speak in inherently ambiguous and confusing language. Such teaching will inevitably cause some of Christ's little ones to stumble into heresy. Christian ministers and theologians have a weighty responsibility to our Lord Jesus Christ for the care of his sheep. We do not show care.....by taking a doctrine that is already a difficult mystery and reformulating it in such a way that will lead his little ones to heretical conclusions about it"

"Van Til's 'one person and three persons' doctrine adds nothing of any worth to trinitarian theology. It does not "supplement" orthodox trinitarianism. It distorts it."

"Proclaiming this doctrine in the church will cause these little ones to stumble, and those who continue to proclaim it will be responsible. Attempts to justify this doctrine should stop"

 

[jwright82]

I think when it comes to "Van Tillians," he left the door ajar and they have opened it up a considerable way. Again, I don't think the philosophical analysis of the doctrine of the Trinity is the main problem. It is paradox. Under that methodology a person can introduce all kinds of things and they cannot be tested with a strict logical examination. You only need to show it is "in the Bible," something heretics have always been happy to do by simply making it up and finding some verses to support it. Then you can add some biblicism in there, with a lack of historical awareness, and we have some major problems.

Well can't argue with you there, though I don't mind the paradox but I do not want to debate it.
[automerge]1760564290[/automerge]

I don't think there is any conspiracy here, I just think that it stands to reason that a teacher will influence his/her students. Some of VT's students/readers will have rejected his formulation outright, some will have accepted his explanation of it and some won't have given it much thought. In the case of those who don't give it much thought, some will forget the teaching, but for others it will have a subtle or not so subtle influence on their understanding of the Trinity.

Having reflected on questions that have been raised by a variety of people on this thread, regarding my concerns with VT's Trinitarian doctrine, I did start to think "am I going too far with my criticisms". I reread part of Dr Mathison's book this afternoon and was struck by the following quotes. Dr Mathison summarises what I have been trying to say more eloquently than I could.

Well good. I can agree with most of what he said but this is not a hill I'll die on. I'm glad this was helpful for you. You're welcome in Florida anytime my friend.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Well can't argue with you there, though I don't mind the paradox but I do not want to debate it.
[automerge]1760564290[/automerge]

Well good. I can agree with most of what he said but this is not a hill I'll die on. I'm glad this was helpful for you. You're welcome in Florida anytime my friend.

Thank you! Likewise, you’re welcome in the UK but I highly doubt you’d want to exchange your climate for one that is often about 50F colder

 

[faithandfreedom]

Really?! Is this an assertaion or haveyou read men who have been affected by this language and have modified their views on the Trinity accordingly? I find this assertion absurd. Again, I don't think his writing was harmless, but it strains credulity that his writing on this point has influenced many people. Who?

He taught at WTS for 43 years, during which time he taught courses on systematic theology. If his teaching on the Trinity did not influence the people he was teaching during that time, then he must have been a pretty lousy teacher.

Also see my post from earlier this evening that includes quotes from Dr Mathison.

 

[faithandfreedom]

He taught at WTS for 43 years, during which time he taught courses on systematic theology. If his teaching on the Trinity did not influence the people he was teaching during that time, then he must have been a pretty lousy teacher.

Also see my post from earlier this evening that includes quotes from Dr Mathison.

A quote from Dr Mathison:

"Van Til's 'one person and three persons' doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical, contrary to our ancient creeds, contrary to our Reformed confessions of faith, and it seriously endangers the souls of Christ's sheep whenever and wherever it is taught. It strikes at the vitals of the historic Christian faith.

If it is reasonable for Dr Mathison to "assert" that wherever it is taught it endangers souls, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to suggest that many souls have been influenced by Van Til's teaching.

 

[MW]

A quote from Dr Mathison:

If it is reasonable for Dr Mathison to "assert" that wherever it is taught it endangers souls, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to suggest that many souls have been influenced by Van Til's teaching.

I thought we agreed it is confusion, not heresy. These kinds of statements are only going to push people to want to explain Van Til even though they disagree with him and agree in principle with Dr. Mathison. No Christian wants to say that the Unity of God is impersonal -- that it is a thing. If He were only a thing, how did He become personal in the way we know Him in creation, providence, and redemption? How can we speak of revelation at all? Is Dr. Mathison willing to come out and explain this? Van Til was exploring this. No; I don't agree with his absolute personality. But there is something in the revelation of God as it comes to us that is deeply and intimately personal. He is not a thing. The very fact I want to say "He" is demonstrative of this. So let's get back to our original settlement -- it is confusion, not heresy.
[automerge]1760568965[/automerge]

I thought we agreed it is confusion, not heresy. These kinds of statements are only going to push people to want to explain Van Til even though they disagree with him and agree in principle with Dr. Mathison. No Christian wants to say that the Unity of God is impersonal -- that it is a thing. If He were only a thing, how did He become personal in the way we know Him in creation, providence, and redemption? How can we speak of revelation at all? Is Dr. Mathison willing to come out and explain this? Van Til was exploring this. No; I don't agree with his absolute personality. But there is something in the revelation of God as it comes to us that is deeply and intimately personal. He is not a thing. The very fact I want to say "He" is demonstrative of this. So let's get back to our original settlement -- it is confusion, not heresy.

This is from my review of Dr. Mathison. Hopefully it shows there is a middle course:

"More serious is the concern about CVT’s doctrine of the Trinity. His language cannot be justified. God is not one person. If one’s philosophy allows him to use such language it should be clear that his philosophy is no longer being used in the service of theology. However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue. That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

 

[faithandfreedom]

I thought we agreed it is confusion, not heresy. These kinds of statements are only going to push people to want to explain Van Til even though they disagree with him and agree in principle with Dr. Mathison.

I used the quote from Dr Mathison in order to refute the charge that I was making unfounded assertions. I have explained my views on whether it is heresy or confusion in previous posts and I stand by those comments.

No Christian wants to say that the Unity of God is impersonal -- that it is a thing. If He were only a thing, how did He become personal in the way we know Him in creation, providence, and redemption? How can we speak of revelation at all?

I couldn’t agree with you more.

The one essence, three persons formula expresses the fact that God cannot be impersonal, as God reveals himself to us as three persons, who indwell one another, there can be no more profound expression of union and communion.

Is Dr. Mathison willing to come out and explain this? Van Til was exploring this. No; I don't agree with his absolute personality. But there is something in the revelation of God as it comes to us that is deeply and intimately personal. He is not a thing. The very fact I want to say "He" is demonstrative of this. So let's get back to our original settlement -- it is confusion, not heresy.
[automerge]1760568965[/automerge]

God is definitely not a thing. He is one being and three persons. He took human nature to himself and thus we have union and communion with the living God. This is the ultimate relationship - one cannot have a relationship with a “thing”.

This is from my review of Dr. Mathison. Hopefully it shows there is a middle course:

"More serious is the concern about CVT’s doctrine of the Trinity. His language cannot be justified. God is not one person. If one’s philosophy allows him to use such language it should be clear that his philosophy is no longer being used in the service of theology. However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue. That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

Seem’s like a pretty sensible review to me.

 

[MW]

The one essence, three persons formula expresses the fact that God cannot be impersonal, as God reveals himself to us as three persons, who indwell one another, there can be no more profound expression of union and communion.

Actually, it doesn't suffice. You have the added explanation of perichoresis, mutual indwelling in unity. So that the unity can now express personhood. If one reads Bavinck and Van Til, or even some of the Princeton theologians, that is what they were trying to come at. How do we speak of this unified personality in relation to the tri-personality so as not to make one more absolute than the other? When it is seen in this context the discussion is obviously not taking place outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Actually, it doesn't suffice. You have the added explanation of perichoresis, mutual indwelling in unity. So that the unity can now express personhood. If one reads Bavinck and Van Til, or even some of the Princeton theologians, that is what they were trying to come at. How do we speak of this unified personality in relation to the tri-personality so as not to make one more absolute than the other? When it is seen in this context the discussion is obviously not taking place outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Perichoresis is inherent in the statement “one being, three persons”. Yes it was only formally expressed and explained at a later date, but the point is, it strengthens and builds upon the “one essence, three persons formula”. VT’s formula recasts the Orthodox formula and weakens it. Hence we must reject it.

 

[MW]

Perichoresis is inherent in the statement “one being, three persons”. Yes it was only formally expressed and explained at a later date, but the point is, it strengthens and builds upon the “one essence, three persons formula”. VT’s formula recasts the Orthodox formula and weakens it. Hence we must reject it.

On the surface, maybe; but historically it has been acknowledged that it was limited in what it tells us. The traditional language is effectively a stop sign. In classical theology perichoresis operates within the already-established framework of the one divine essence. Its primary function is to explain how the three Persons can be truly distinct yet not separate? How can the Father be in the Son and the Son in the Father without collapsing into one person? Perichoresis tells us it is through eternal, mutual indwelling and interpenetration. So we are starting with the Three and finishing with the One.

This now leaves open the question how the three persons and the one essence do not equal four somethings. In the classical tradition, including the Reformed orthodox, it would be argued that the problem is in our finite understanding, not in the formulation. We would leave it at that. We are bound in by our clear definitions of the Three and the One. The mystery is to be adored, not understood.

Van Til is trying to show that this solution effectively requires us to stop short of what the Bible teaches in terms of equal ultimacy. In Scripture and in God Himself neither the One nor the Three are prior to the other; they are co-eternal and mutually defining. Bavinck uses the idea of unfolding. Van Til just comes straight out with absolute personality and is willing to embrace the paradox. He does not want to leave the formulation open-ended with the ability to misconstrue the Three as being more ultimate than the One. He wants biblical revelation to be brought out in its fulness even if it means living with apparent contradiction.

So again, the problem is not so much his formulation, as with his use of paradox. We can reject his formulation but still credit his attempt to work this out within the bounds of orthodoxy. It might sound heretical at first; but in actual fact it is forcing us to deal more openly with the equal ultimacy of the Three and the One.

 

[jwright82]

Thank you! Likewise, you’re welcome in the UK but I highly doubt you’d want to exchange your climate for one that is often about 50F colder

I used to live in Texas and it snowed there, so I might be accustomed to it. I also went snow boarding a lot in Colorado when I was younger, my parents loved doing it and my father could afford it.
But I do love my Florida weather to be honest. Thanks for the invite my friend.

 

[faithandfreedom]

On the surface, maybe; but historically it has been acknowledged that it was limited in what it tells us. The traditional language is effectively a stop sign.

This is not true. To say it is a stop sign could not be more wrong. The statement “one essence, three persons” is one of the foundational statements of orthodox Christianity and expresses incredibly deep and profound truths about the living God. To say that "historically it has been acknowledged that it was limited in what it tells us" is simply incorrect. The Reformers held dearly to the ecumenical creeds precisely because they are the foundation of the faith.

In classical theology perichoresis operates within the already-established framework of the one divine essence. Its primary function is to explain how the three Persons can be truly distinct yet not separate? How can the Father be in the Son and the Son in the Father without collapsing into one person? Perichoresis tells us it is through eternal, mutual indwelling and interpenetration. So we are starting with the Three and finishing with the One.

We are certainly not starting with the Three and finishing with the One. To quote Gregory of Nazianzus

No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three;
no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one.

This is the way that the Church Fathers thought of the Trinity. This debunks the claim that the phrase "one essence, three persons" is a phrase that is limited in what it tells us.

This now leaves open the question how the three persons and the one essence do not equal four somethings. In the classical tradition, including the Reformed orthodox, it would be argued that the problem is in our finite understanding, not in the formulation. We would leave it at that. We are bound in by our clear definitions of the Three and the One. The mystery is to be adored, not understood.

This was not an open question at the time of the Reformation, it had already been explained by the fact that each person is coequal and coeternal. God is one being and three persons and there never was a time when this was not the case. There is no room to think that this constitutes four somethings, unless one is not familiar with the historic debates and statements of the Church (I do not have you in view when I make this statement).

Van Til is trying to show that this solution effectively requires us to stop short of what the Bible teaches in terms of equal ultimacy. In Scripture and in God Himself neither the One nor the Three are prior to the other; they are co-eternal and mutually defining. Bavinck uses the idea of unfolding. Van Til just comes straight out with absolute personality and is willing to embrace the paradox. He does not want to leave the formulation open-ended with the ability to misconstrue the Three as being more ultimate than the One. He wants biblical revelation to be brought out in its fulness even if it means living with apparent contradiction.

If this is what VT was trying to show then it would be quite shocking, as this would be an ahistorical understanding of theology.

So again, the problem is not so much his formulation, as with his use of paradox. We can reject his formulation but still credit his attempt to work this out within the bounds of orthodoxy. It might sound heretical at first; but in actual fact it is forcing us to deal more openly with the equal ultimacy of the Three and the One.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The problem is the formula "one person, three persons". This formula has further implications which tend towards a heretical view of God, such as when Van Til tries to explain that Christ is "coterminous with the Father". This is a statement that leads to an erosion of the distinctions between the persons, further undermining the orthodox teaching of the last 1500 years.

 

[MW]

This is not true. To say it is a stop sign could not be more wrong. The statement “one essence, three persons” is one of the foundational statements of orthodox Christianity and expresses incredibly deep and profound truths about the living God. To say that "historically it has been acknowledged that it was limited in what it tells us" is simply incorrect. The Reformers held dearly to the ecumenical creeds precisely because they are the foundation of the faith.

Calvin following Augustine affirmed that we say Person because we have to say something. That language is all we have. Of course it is a stop sign. It is saying, Don't go beyond this point. Augustine: "Yet, when the question is asked, What three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, three persons, not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken."

Again, "Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one person, as one essence and one God, but say three persons, while we do not say three Gods or three essences; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent, when asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three?"

We are certainly not starting with the Three and finishing with the One. To quote Gregory of Nazianzus

Perichoresis is mutual indwelling of Three Persons. Of course it is starting with the Three.

This is the way that the Church Fathers thought of the Trinity. This debunks the claim that the phrase "one essence, three persons" is a phrase that is limited in what it tells us.

Your reference expresses the mystery that the tradition struggles with: "I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light." This is the kind of problem the orthodox are working with and part of the great tradition within which Van Til was working.

This was not an open question at the time of the Reformation, it had already been explained by the fact that each person is coequal and coeternal. God is one being and three persons and there never was a time when this was not the case. There is no room to think that this constitutes four somethings, unless one is not familiar with the historic debates and statements of the Church (I do not have you in view when I make this statement).

Within the historic debates there are not "four somethings" because they all stop at the mystery. Augustine discusses the problem of genus and species within the context of the 2nd quotation provided above. The purpose of the language is to avoid a fourth something, a "substance" which is somehow more than the Persons.

If this is what VT was trying to show then it would be quite shocking, as this would be an ahistorical understanding of theology.

The history is what it is.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The problem is the formula "one person, three persons". This formula has further implications which tend towards a heretical view of God, such as when Van Til tries to explain that Christ is "coterminous with the Father". This is a statement that leads to an erosion of the distinctions between the persons, further undermining the orthodox teaching of the last 1500 years.

This would put it back in the line of heresy. It is as if nothing has been accomplished by this thread. That is a shame.

 

[MW]

Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: "Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Again: "Furthermore, the vexing question of whether to start from and emphasize the one being of God or the three persons, is best approached by recognizing their equal ultimacy. As Torrance argues, “The one Being of God is identical with the communion of the three divine Persons and the Communion of the three divine Persons is identical with the one Being of God,” for God is “intrinsically personal ... completely personal.” This is what Van Til means when he writes that God is one person and three persons, although he expresses it in a confusing way. God is not one person in the relational sense in which the three persons are to one another. However, Van Til means that there is no question of God being less than personal. Alan Torrance is prepared to talk in terms similar to those of Van Til."

 

[jwright82]

This is not true. To say it is a stop sign could not be more wrong. The statement “one essence, three persons” is one of the foundational statements of orthodox Christianity and expresses incredibly deep and profound truths about the living God. To say that "historically it has been acknowledged that it was limited in what it tells us" is simply incorrect. The Reformers held dearly to the ecumenical creeds precisely because they are the foundation of the faith.


We are certainly not starting with the Three and finishing with the One. To quote Gregory of Nazianzus

This is the way that the Church Fathers thought of the Trinity. This debunks the claim that the phrase "one essence, three persons" is a phrase that is limited in what it tells us.


This was not an open question at the time of the Reformation, it had already been explained by the fact that each person is coequal and coeternal. God is one being and three persons and there never was a time when this was not the case. There is no room to think that this constitutes four somethings, unless one is not familiar with the historic debates and statements of the Church (I do not have you in view when I make this statement).

If this is what VT was trying to show then it would be quite shocking, as this would be an ahistorical understanding of theology.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The problem is the formula "one person, three persons". This formula has further implications which tend towards a heretical view of God, such as when Van Til tries to explain that Christ is "coterminous with the Father". This is a statement that leads to an erosion of the distinctions between the persons, further undermining the orthodox teaching of the last 1500 years.

We have already agreed on the basics. Van Til was confusing. Why don't we leave it at that?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

He taught at WTS for 43 years, during which time he taught courses on systematic theology. If his teaching on the Trinity did not influence the people he was teaching during that time, then he must have been a pretty lousy teacher.

Also see my post from earlier this evening that includes quotes from Dr Mathison.

I had initially deleted my post because I thought you had been sufficiently shown that post9itvely asserting something is differnt than assuming something must be the case.

The statement: "Van Til has caused many men to drift from orthodoxy on the Trinity."

is different than:

"Van Til's teaching might have influenced many men to drift from the Trinity."

You can assert the former statement, but you have no data. You assume it must be the case because he taught for 43 years. I have met and worked with many men who were taught by them, and I haven't found a single man who has repeated the formula. I haven't seen it in the OPC or the PCA in any publication.

The reason is that the Westminster Standards are what men are held to.

Now, again, in writing this, I'm not defending the language. It has been demonstrated that he ought not to have written in such a confusing way.

The problem with quoting Keith Mathison on this point is that his mentor, Dr. Sproul, has a much more expansive and popular ministry that has led to a bit of confusion on Chalcedonian Christology. As I wrote earlier, I love R.C. and I take him for what he did well.

It would be much easier for me to demonstrate that R.C. has probably influenced an oder of magnitude more than Van Til and, were I prone to overstatement and "this must mean that" then I would confidently and positively assert that R.C has caused the confusion of many on the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Let's just say that I've run into *many* living and breathing people who have a confused understanding of the hypostatic union, but have *never* met a person who repeated the idea that God is one Person and God is three Persons. Even at a popular level, most people you run into know that there are three Persons. The problem they have is not monophysitism but actually something bordering on tritheism.

I don't know how old you are or how much experience you have in the Church at large, but your interactions here evidence a kind of immaturity and a lack of familiarity with how ideas land and are expressed in the Church. Your latest interaction with MW even demonstrates an inability to follow a historical argument, and your fixation inhibits you from understanding how he is explaining something to you that you don't seem to be apprehending. I fear I might be wasting my time trying to illustrate how silly it is to overstate a historical theological case but if you persist beyond this point then I won't bother trying to argue away from it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: "Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Again: "Furthermore, the vexing question of whether to start from and emphasize the one being of God or the three persons, is best approached by recognizing their equal ultimacy. As Torrance argues, “The one Being of God is identical with the communion of the three divine Persons and the Communion of the three divine Persons is identical with the one Being of God,” for God is “intrinsically personal ... completely personal.” This is what Van Til means when he writes that God is one person and three persons, although he expresses it in a confusing way. God is not one person in the relational sense in which the three persons are to one another. However, Van Til means that there is no question of God being less than personal. Alan Torrance is prepared to talk in terms similar to those of Van Til."

What's the source for this?

 

[faithandfreedom]

What's the source for this?

It’s from Letham’s Holy Trinity. Page 203-204. If you have a copy it is worth reading the paragraph at the top of page 204. If you don’t I can share this section with you if you like.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: "Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Again: "Furthermore, the vexing question of whether to start from and emphasize the one being of God or the three persons, is best approached by recognizing their equal ultimacy. As Torrance argues, “The one Being of God is identical with the communion of the three divine Persons and the Communion of the three divine Persons is identical with the one Being of God,” for God is “intrinsically personal ... completely personal.” This is what Van Til means when he writes that God is one person and three persons, although he expresses it in a confusing way. God is not one person in the relational sense in which the three persons are to one another. However, Van Til means that there is no question of God being less than personal. Alan Torrance is prepared to talk in terms similar to those of Van Til."

Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: "Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Again: "Furthermore, the vexing question of whether to start from and emphasize the one being of God or the three persons, is best approached by recognizing their equal ultimacy. As Torrance argues, “The one Being of God is identical with the communion of the three divine Persons and the Communion of the three divine Persons is identical with the one Being of God,” for God is “intrinsically personal ... completely personal.” This is what Van Til means when he writes that God is one person and three persons, although he expresses it in a confusing way. God is not one person in the relational sense in which the three persons are to one another. However, Van Til means that there is no question of God being less than personal. Alan Torrance is prepared to talk in terms similar to those of Van Til."

Thanks for drawing my attention to this quote. I’ll reflect on it and respond shortly.

 

[faithandfreedom]

I had initially deleted my post because I thought you had been sufficiently shown that post9itvely asserting something is differnt than assuming something must be the case.

The statement: "Van Til has caused many men to drift from orthodoxy on the Trinity."

You are attributing a statement to me that I did not make, unless I am mistaken.

is different than:

"Van Til's teaching might have influenced many men to drift from the Trinity."

You can assert the former statement, but you have no data. You assume it must be the case because he taught for 43 years. I have met and worked with many men who were taught by them, and I haven't found a single man who has repeated the formula. I haven't seen it in the OPC or the PCA in any publication.

I think you are missing the nuanced argument that I have outlined in previous posts regarding VT’s influence.

The reason is that the Westminster Standards are what men are held to.

Now, again, in writing this, I'm not defending the language. It has been demonstrated that he ought not to have written in such a confusing way.

The problem with quoting Keith Mathison on this point is that his mentor, Dr. Sproul, has a much more expansive and popular ministry that has led to a bit of confusion on Chalcedonian Christology. As I wrote earlier, I love R.C. and I take him for what he did well.

Are you suggesting that Mathison is not a reliable guide on this because his mentor is Sproul? Is this to suggest that Sproul’s views influenced Mathison?

I don't know how old you are or how much experience you have in the Church at large, but your interactions here evidence a kind of immaturity and a lack of familiarity with how ideas land and are expressed in the Church.

I’m not sure how my age is relevant. Furthermore, I am at a loss as to how you are able to discern my level of maturity from the interactions on this thread. I have been forthright in making my case, but as far as I can tell I’ve interacted with each person on this thread in a respectful manner.

Your latest interaction with MW even demonstrates an inability to follow a historical argument, and your fixation inhibits you from understanding how he is explaining something to you that you don't seem to be apprehending.

Not so, my interactions demonstrate nothing of the sort. I have followed the argument and understand it. It is just that I disagree with it. Fixating on the historic expression of the doctrine of the Trinity is a charge that I will gladly plead guilty to. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to make personal comments in this manner, as it takes away from a largely respectful debate that I have very much benefited from.

I fear I might be wasting my time trying to illustrate how silly it is to overstate a historical theological case but if you persist beyond this point then I won't bother trying to argue away from it.

Again, I’m not sure that the importance of rooting our theology in the historic creeds and confessions can be overstated. I am sorry that you feel that you are wasting your time, as I have benefitted from you challenging my thinking.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: "Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Again: "Furthermore, the vexing question of whether to start from and emphasize the one being of God or the three persons, is best approached by recognizing their equal ultimacy. As Torrance argues, “The one Being of God is identical with the communion of the three divine Persons and the Communion of the three divine Persons is identical with the one Being of God,” for God is “intrinsically personal ... completely personal.” This is what Van Til means when he writes that God is one person and three persons, although he expresses it in a confusing way. God is not one person in the relational sense in which the three persons are to one another. However, Van Til means that there is no question of God being less than personal. Alan Torrance is prepared to talk in terms similar to those of Van Til."

Thank you for this.

I think it is fair to say that Dr Letham is an authority on the Trinity and possesses immense knowledge of the historical development of the doctrine. Having read most of Letham's major works I have a huge amount of respect for him. When I read this quote today it made me reflect more deeply on my position.

As always Letham writes in an irenic and measured manner. It is interesting to note that he cites Torrence as warning against the use of the term "person", as a substitute for essence or being. I also note that Letham rightly points out that in seeking to avoid God being an impersonal essence, VT's motives were good. However, Letham does not quite go as far as to say that VT's formula is orthodox, so I am left wondering.

Rev Winzer, did you get these quotes from the first or second edition of "The Holy Trinity"? Does Letham say anything further that might settle this debate once and for all?

 

[RamistThomist]

I think it is fair to say that Dr Letham is an authority on the Trinity and possesses immense knowledge of the historical development of the doctrine. Having read most of Letham's major works I have a huge amount of respect for him. When I read this quote today it made me reflect more deeply on my position.

Correct. Letham has forgotten more on the Trinity than most will ever know.

I also note that Letham rightly points out that in seeking to avoid God being an impersonal essence, VT's motives were good. However, Letham does not quite go as far as to say that VT's formula is orthodox, so I am left wondering.

The more I think on it, I believe the "impersonal essence" is a non-problem. What exactly would make an essence "personal?" If you say "personal properties," then you've already turned the essence into a person.

 

[MW]

I think it is fair to say that Dr Letham is an authority on the Trinity and possesses immense knowledge of the historical development of the doctrine. Having read most of Letham's major works I have a huge amount of respect for him. When I read this quote today it made me reflect more deeply on my position.

I am glad we could find a common source to help.

As always Letham writes in an irenic and measured manner. It is interesting to note that he cites Torrence as warning against the use of the term "person", as a substitute for essence or being. I also note that Letham rightly points out that in seeking to avoid God being an impersonal essence, VT's motives were good. However, Letham does not quite go as far as to say that VT's formula is orthodox, so I am left wondering.

The history of the doctrine is messy. We have the formulation, which is a great blessing; but it did not drop out of heaven. Theologians have struggled to explain the formulation at times. So we allow a degree of charitable judgment as they work through particular issues. We do not want to make a man an offender for a word.

Rev Winzer, did you get these quotes from the first or second edition of "The Holy Trinity"? Does Letham say anything further that might settle this debate once and for all?

I was on my library account working with a digital copy. I will have to get back to you on that. Is there an appreciable difference?
[automerge]1760648437[/automerge]

The more I think on it, I believe the "impersonal essence" is a non-problem. What exactly would make an essence "personal?" If you say "personal properties," then you've already turned the essence into a person.

How many wills does God have? How is a will not personal? How can we say "God is love" and mean it?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am glad we could find a common source to help.



The history of the doctrine is messy. We have the formulation, which is a great blessing; but it did not drop out of heaven. Theologians have struggled to explain the formulation at times. So we allow a degree of charitable judgment as they work through particular issues. We do not want to make a man an offender for a word.



I was on my library account working with a digital copy. I will have to get back to you on that. Is there an appreciable difference?
[automerge]1760648437[/automerge]


How many wills does God have? How is a will not personal? How can we say "God is love" and mean it?

I see the tension. But if will is understood as a faculty, I think it removes the problem of whether it is "personal."

 

[faithandfreedom]

I was on my library account working with a digital copy. I will have to get back to you on that. Is there an appreciable difference?

Not in the sections that I read.

However, you seem to have been rather selective in the sections that you have chosen to quote. I assume you read the section that you chose to leave out of the middle of the quote below?

"Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal
being,” warns against calling him a person.... Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

 

[MW]

I see the tension. But if will is understood as a faculty, I think it removes the problem of whether it is "personal."

The Divine Will is God's essence as capable of loving and choosing. If that is not personal I do not know what is. How would you establish the Spirit is a Person if willing is not personal? The three "ways" or "modes" of willing" in the one will must be personal. This is the kind of thing we should be careful not to abandon because there are intricate consequences.
[automerge]1760649580[/automerge]

However, you seem to have been rather selective in the sections that you have chosen to quote. I assume you read the section that you chose to leave out of the middle of the quote below?

Yes; I think we would agree on the elliptical portion, so I saw it as irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[faithandfreedom]

The Divine Will is God's essence as capable of loving and choosing. If that is not personal I do not know what is. How would you establish the Spirit is a Person if willing is not personal? The three "ways" or "modes" of willing" in the one will must be personal. This is the kind of thing we should be careful not to abandon because there are intricate consequences.
[automerge]1760649580[/automerge]


Yes; I think we would agree on the elliptical portion, so I saw it as irrelevant to the point I was making.

I think it is unlikely that we will agree on the portion that you missed out since Letham is clear that the use of the term 'person' in place of 'essence' leads to heresy:

"Here we note Van Til’s suggestion that God is one person. He is concerned to avoid any notion of an impersonal divine essence, such as crept into Western Trinitarianism later. This is a laudable motive. However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal being,” warns against calling him a person.

The reasons for this should be clear, for the persons of the Trinity are relational. They are persons in relation to others (ad alios). The Father is Father in relation to the Son. Hence, if the one being of God were a person in the same sense that the three are persons, we would have to ask: in relation to whom? The answer could only be one of three possibilities, each heretical: (1) The being of God would be in relation to the three, and so would be a fourth, forming a quaternity. Or (2) he would be in relation to some other being, and we would have a pantheon, not a Trinity. Or (3) the three persons would be reduced to attributes of the one absolute person. But if God is not one person in the same way in which the three are persons, a different term is needed for the way in which he is one – exactly what the fathers used.

Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language."

Letham in his usual style is careful to say that VT's intention may be good but his formula leads to heresy. Furthermore, he is unambiguous in stating that a term other than "one person" is required to express God's one essence "exactly what the fathers used" i.e. "one essence, three persons"

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You are attributing a statement to me that I did not make, unless I am mistaken.

I think you are missing the nuanced argument that I have outlined in previous posts regarding VT’s influence.

Are you suggesting that Mathison is not a reliable guide on this because his mentor is Sproul? Is this to suggest that Sproul’s views influenced Mathison?


I’m not sure how my age is relevant. Furthermore, I am at a loss as to how you are able to discern my level of maturity from the interactions on this thread. I have been forthright in making my case, but as far as I can tell I’ve interacted with each person on this thread in a respectful manner.

Not so, my interactions demonstrate nothing of the sort. I have followed the argument and understand it. It is just that I disagree with it. Fixating on the historic expression of the doctrine of the Trinity is a charge that I will gladly plead guilty to. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to make personal comments in this manner, as it takes away from a largely respectful debate that I have very much benefited from.

Again, I’m not sure that the importance of rooting our theology in the historic creeds and confessions can be overstated. I am sorry that you feel that you are wasting your time, as I have benefitted from you challenging my thinking.

Your response is illustrative of your immaturity.

Your response that you are trying to defend a historical formulation is evidence. Nobody here (especially me) has argued otherwise. I harve repeatedly stated the exact opposite. What I have argued is that it strains credulity to claim that this usage by Van Til has led many astray.

I didn't state that Mathison had no reason to critique Van Til on this statement. What I did was compare the influence of two men on the Trinity. I illustrated my point that it is silly to assert Van Til led many men astray by the reality that one cannot find anyone in particular who has confused the Trinity by this formulation among those men trained by him. In contrast, it is quite common to find men who are confused on Chalcedonian Christology. Were I to be an immature Churcman, I would lay that at the feet of R.C. Sproul. I am not, however, so inclined because men in the Church have pointed out those places where R.C. drifts and nobody is giving a pass to people who are soft on the Hypostatic union.

Thus, my point stands that the way Van Til expressed himself is heterodox on the surface and ought not to be repeated. What I refuse to assent to is a childish assertion that he has influenced men to follow the seeming conclusions and deny Nicene orthodoxy. The reason is taht I have years of experience in the Church and have never met such a man.

It doesn't excuse Van Til for the language, but it suffices to demonstrate that the breathless concern that he has led many astray by these words is silly. And, in spite of protestations, it demonstrates immaturity when a man simply repeats assertions and then, when corrected, claims that he is standing for orthodoxy, implying others are willing to compromise on it simply because they are pointing out how silly it is to repeat an assertion that has no basis in lived reality.